Impeachment pending?

[writingprof]

Biden wasting his "hundred days" on a post-presidency impeachment of his predecessor sounds about right. Otherwise, he might have to waste it on covid nonsense. Carry on.

Alas, it appears that I was insufficiently cynical: Biden will not waste his "hundred days" on impeachment.

"Let's give President-elect Biden the 100 days he needs to get his agenda off and running," said Mr. Clyburn, an influential ally to the incoming president. "And maybe we will send the articles sometime after that."

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/10/us/joe-trump-biden#the-house-could-vote-as-soon-as-tuesday-on-an-impeachment-article-the-chambers-no-3-democrat-said

I bet a million-kajillion dollars that they do not "maybe . . . send the articles sometime after that."  It's now or never, jackasses.

[dismalist]

I can't afford to bet that much, but I think the articles of impeachment won't be sent to the Senate for a while. This keeps Trump in the news as a target for the Democratic Party. Trump is a uniter, not a divider -- of Democrats. :-)

[Ruralguy]

If it goes through to the Senate essentially now, there's an outside chance of conviction (I only really count about 6 or so Republicans likely to vote for conviction, a stretch can maybe take to just below 10, but 16 or 17 or whatever that is..yikes, no).  But if it goes through in two weeks, after he  leaves, then no way will there be a vote to convict. I know kicking him out for the  the future only needs 50%, but can that happen without a conviction vote (2/3)?

[ergative]

As I understand it, conviction with 2/3 for removal is not a prerequisite for conviction with majority for barring from future office. It's two independent votes. If Dems wait until after Biden's in office, they can skip a vote on removal (which they'd probably lose), and only vote for barring from future office (which, with Romney, Toomey, Murkowski, and Sasse on board, they'd probably win).

[dismalist]

The Guardian phrases it so that an official must first be convicted before the simple majority vote to ban future officeholding takes place.

These precedents show the Senate is permitted to disqualify President Trump from future officeholding on a majority vote if he is impeached and convicted.

The full article is here https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/07/we-must-impeach-trump-and-bar-him-from-holding-office-again-now

[Puget]

As I understand it, conviction with 2/3 for removal is not a prerequisite for conviction with majority for barring from future office. It's two independent votes. If Dems wait until after Biden's in office, they can skip a vote on removal (which they'd probably lose), and only vote for barring from future office (which, with Romney, Toomey, Murkowski, and Sasse on board, they'd probably win).

No, conviction has to come first-- it's like a trial where first there has to be a guilty verdict and then you move to the penalty phase-- although the penalties are majority vote, the conviction itself has to be by 2/3, and you can't skip that part. It is intentionally hard to do.

It is now being reported that the House will vote but then wait to send the articles to the Senate (which would trigger an immediate trial), since they can't realistically remove him in the next 10 days, and the Senate will need to focus on cabinet appointments etc. for some time after that. I wonder if that may also give some R senators time to observe Trump's diminished influence out of power and  consider their own political futures (and whether they really want him even pretending he'll run in 2024 which would paralyze the rest of the potential field). I still doubt you'll get 17 of them, but I bet it would be a different matter if it was a secret vote.

[clean]

but then wait to send the articles to the Senate (which would trigger an immediate trial),

After the first impeachment of Trump, I seem to recall that Pelosi waited a while to send it to the Senate, and that McConnel didnt Immediately begin the trial portion.  (though I could be wrong about the later part).  I believe that the decision was made, eventually, to let it go through quickly (with no witnesses called!) with the minimum of presentation time granted. 

[mamselle]

Yes, she did wait to send it.

Too bad they can't just take that one as a re-do.

M.

[Puget]

but then wait to send the articles to the Senate (which would trigger an immediate trial),

After the first impeachment of Trump, I seem to recall that Pelosi waited a while to send it to the Senate, and that McConnel didnt Immediately begin the trial portion.  (though I could be wrong about the later part).  I believe that the decision was made, eventually, to let it go through quickly (with no witnesses called!) with the minimum of presentation time granted.

The House can wait to send it but from what I've read the Senate cannot then wait to start the trial. Otherwise they could just let it die by never starting the trial. It's the one thing the House can force the Senate to do.

[writingprof]

After the first impeachment of Trump, I seem to recall that Pelosi waited a while to send it to the Senate, and that McConnel didnt Immediately begin the trial portion. 

What happened is that Pelosi, ever the master strategist, threatened to withhold the impeachment articles until McConnell agreed to her procedural terms. Because he didn't want the impeachment articles ever to be sent, she had no leverage, and she soon folded.

In other news, the New York Times is reporting that McConnell is pleased about this second impeachment because it represents a chance to purge Trump from the party.  Alas, this is why the Democratic Senate will find a way not to hold a second impeachment trial.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

[writingprof]

Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.

[jimbogumbo]

Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

[ciao_yall]

Louis Gohmert just cited Wikipedia his source to argue the Democrats were doing it incorrectly.

Someone needs to edit his page for him...

[mahagonny]

Several high ranking Republicans planning to vote for impeachment of considering it, including Liz Cheney and Moscow Mitch.

I believe he prefers Cocaine Mitch.  Get it right.

Do these count as immature ridiculing of someone's name/nicknaming?

Some people do  derisive nicknames with real flair. Others just sound like thirteen year old boys.
The right way: Cheetos Jesus
The wrong way: Pocahontas